Ten years ago today, Taiwan promulgated the Guidelines for National Unification
But such hype runs counter to public opinion and overlooks the changes that have occurred on both sides of the Taiwan Strait over the past 10 years. The guidelines may satisfy some people's nostalgia for China, but they are not necessarily good for the welfare of the people of Taiwan.
A decade ago, then-president and KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) convened the National Unification Council (NUC, 國統會) and, in the face of a boycott from the DPP -- the largest opposition party -- drew up the guidelines on the basis of discussions between KMT representatives and a few independents. From their very inception, the guidelines -- supposed to be a blueprint for Taiwan's cross-strait policy -- have had problems with their legitimacy and representativeness. They have no legal force nor a political mandate generated by partisan negotiations.
Beijing has never paid any attention to them. China's stance has always been a hardline "one China" principle -- a demand of unconditional surrender from Taiwan. Beijing's attitude was reflected in its rejection of "one China, with each side making its own interpretation"
Beijing also showed its contempt for the guidelines in 1996 by lobbing missiles into the sea near Taiwan's coast shortly before Taiwan's first ever direct presidential election, and then again last year with its belligerent rhetoric in the run-up to the presidential elections. Perhaps back-room dealing is the only explanation for why the KMT, the People First Party and the New Party are suddenly discovering renewed value in a document that has been so thoroughly snubbed by Beijing -- and want to turn it into a law.
In trying to resuscitate the guidelines, the opposition parties are completely overlooking the changes across the Strait and in the international arena over the past decade. Lee effectively abandoned the guidelines when he put forth his "special state-to-state" dictum in 1999. What's more, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) have both proposed a cross-strait confederation before. The change in Beijing's tone over this period is also apparent in rhetoric such as "Peaceful unification; one-country, two systems" and, more recently, Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen's (錢其琛) statement that "Both sides of the Strait belong to `one China.'"
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) also proposed "integration" in his New Year's Eve speech, mapping out a process of integration from cultural and economic to political arenas. The US has tried to promote "interim agreements" and the confederation idea through "second track" channels. All these indicate that Taiwan, China and the US have gone through political changes far beyond the grasp of the guidelines.
All told, the guidelines are outdated and lack democratic legitimacy. But the opposition alliance has foolishly tried to hang on to the desiccated skeleton.
In a bid to stabilize domestic politics, Chen promised in his inauguration speech not to abolish the NUC nor the unification guidelines. But he certainly does not need to make a comforter out of a political strategy proven to be useless. Now that both the confederation proposal and Chen's "integration" dictum have received generally positive responses, why can't we look ahead and create a new consensus on cross-strait relations? Perhaps the smartest thing to do at this point would be to send the guidelines to a museum for exhibition as another ancient relic.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs